Palin kicks Demobama Butt !!!

[Fatality]

Can I just take issue with a few assertions you've made?

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior.


There are two people who need an organ transplant to continue to live. One is sixteen years of age and otherwise perfectly healthy. The other is eighty years of age. Who should get the single organ that is available for transplant?

Can you answer those questions?

the 16 year old is an obese iv drug user and the eighty year old is a body builder and productive member of society

the old man get the transplant

However, if Mickey Mantle comes along with a booze destroyed liver, he gets the transplant first.

dykes are not given any preference, they are automaticly disqualified

 

[Gudrid]

Great. A provision that has been included in other Medicare/Medicaid provisions (and supported by both sides of the aisle in those bills, btw) gets dropped because of people following politicians like sheep without actually educating themselves, the parties that are supposed to be balancing each other are tools on one side and complete pussies on the other...and now a completely voluntary option for end-of-life counseling is dropped, taking that choice away from people who want it. And you cheer for this, because in your world your "side" won. Rock on, government pawn.

A book recommendation for you:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Nature-Movements/dp/0060916125]Amazon.com: The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (9780060916121): Eric Hoffer: Books[/ame]


Might want to give it a read. Most of our politicians have.

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

I'm amazed at the power the liberal media has bestowed upon Sarah Palin by hating, fearing and generally disrespecting her so much. All she had to do is mention Death Panels and she gets results, amazing!

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision Heh. Palin power.

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia.

They are dropping the death panel. But frankly, they will drop it back in once the health care rout is passed. It's not enough. NO OBAMACARE.

Obama's Ration Man: Rahm's brother Ezekiel Emanuel (read the whole thing at Political Evidence):

President Obama’s chief advisor on healthcare is Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In addition to Dr. Emanuel being a trained oncologist, an NIH Bioethicist and a fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute, The Hastings Center, he's also an avowed communitarian who advocates healthcare rationing.

In February 2009, he was tapped by the administration to work on the formulation of a national healthcare strategy. Officially, Dr. Emanuel is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. In February Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that he is "working on (the) health care reform effort." He is "detailed" to the OMB spot and is still officially an employee of the NIH.
In Dr. Emanuel’s writings, he overtly advocates the rationing of healthcare based on age. In January 2009, just one month prior to taking his new position at the White House, Dr. Emanuel co-wrote an article entitled, “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”, in the British medical journal The Lancet. In this article he advocates a particular healthcare allocation system which he calls the “complete lives system.” He declared in The Lancet article that in healthcare, “scarcity is the mother of allocation." He explains, “This system (complete lives system) incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.”

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior. He goes further. He flatly declares that “Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants.” From his standpoint, society has already made an economic investment in the lives of young adults whereas no significant investment has yet been made in the lives of infants, so therefore it’s only “fair” that resources be allocated toward the young adults and away from the infants. He also applies this standard to those that he deems of “no societal worth” such as people with Down syndrome. Sadly, this mindset is eerily similar to that of German National Socialists (Nazis) for the Nazis rationalized their evil attacks against the disabled and vulnerable of their society by throwing out the false notion of "Das Leben nicht lebenswert" or "the life not worth living." This was coupled with claims that the disabled were a financial burden on society. The propaganda poster below illustrates the point well.
(from Pamella Gellar, Atlas Shrugged)

Government Controlled Healthcare, a Hand that Rocks, Cradles to Graves
“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.”
- Vladimir Lenin

Can I just take issue with a few assertions you've made?

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior.

The article is about how scarce medical resources – organs and vaccines – should be distributed. Let me give you a simple example.

There are two people who need an organ transplant to continue to live. One is sixteen years of age and otherwise perfectly healthy. The other is eighty years of age. Who should get the single organ that is available for transplant?

He flatly declares that “Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants.”

Again, let's say that an infant of three months of age and a person of sixteen years of age both need a vaccine to keep them alive. There is only one vaccination available. Who should be given the vaccination?

He also applies this standard to those that he deems of “no societal worth” such as people with Down syndrome.

There are two infants. Both are three months of age. Both will die within a week unless they receive an organ transplant. An organ becomes available. Which infant should received the organ?

Can you answer those questions?

-The 16 year old. Not only more likely to survive the transplant operation, but far more likely to get more mileage out of the heart. The IV drug argument is invalid because such a person would be rejected by UNOS from the get go.

-The infant. The 16 year old has a higher chance of survival than the infant with out it the vaccine because her immune system is more developed.

-Invalid a down syndrome baby would be rejected by or, very low on the UNOS list. The choice would never be the governments, or the doctors for that matter. It all falls into UNOS's authority.

Additionally Palin in a dangerous idiot that should be kept as far away from the white house as possible.

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

*The principle of all lives being equal is attractive but as a principle it isn't useful when decisions about scarce medical interventions have to be made.

Okay then, in your world who makes the decision, competing doctors, the patients, a government panel, a coin tosser or what?

*I would also like to make the point that the complete llives system isn't immune from criticism but that criticism should at least be fair.

fair, mmm... something about eye of the beholder, free thought and impossible dilemmas.

In the real world UNOS makes the call as far as organs go. Vaccines have a history of going to healthy people who are lest likely to survive with out it. ie A healthy baby over a healthy man, healthy man over a man with some other chronic disease.

 

[oreo]

Yep--Palin reads the health bill--mentions a section--that most Americans would not approve of--& we have NANCY PELOSI--running through the halls of congress to omit it immediately--LOL

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

Yep--Palin reads the health bill--mentions a section--that most Americans would not approve of--& we have NANCY PELOSI--running through the halls of congress to omit it immediately--LOL

"Palin reads", does not compute.

 

[Fatality]

Yep--Palin reads the health bill--mentions a section--that most Americans would not approve of--& we have NANCY PELOSI--running through the halls of congress to omit it immediately--LOL

"Palin reads", does not compute.

says the goofball holding up a cell phone to take his pic in front of a mirror

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

Yep--Palin reads the health bill--mentions a section--that most Americans would not approve of--& we have NANCY PELOSI--running through the halls of congress to omit it immediately--LOL

"Palin reads", does not compute.

says the goofball holding up a cell phone to take his pic in front of a mirror

Rather be a known goofball, that an anonymous dick wad any day of the week.

 

[Fatality]

"Palin reads", does not compute.

says the goofball holding up a cell phone to take his pic in front of a mirror

anonymous dick wad any day of the week.

wow you reall that hungry?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm amazed at the power the liberal media has bestowed upon Sarah Palin by hating, fearing and generally disrespecting her so much. All she had to do is mention Death Panels and she gets results, amazing!

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision Heh. Palin power.

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia.

They are dropping the death panel. But frankly, they will drop it back in once the health care rout is passed. It's not enough. NO OBAMACARE.

Obama's Ration Man: Rahm's brother Ezekiel Emanuel (read the whole thing at Political Evidence):

President Obama’s chief advisor on healthcare is Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In addition to Dr. Emanuel being a trained oncologist, an NIH Bioethicist and a fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute, The Hastings Center, he's also an avowed communitarian who advocates healthcare rationing.

In February 2009, he was tapped by the administration to work on the formulation of a national healthcare strategy. Officially, Dr. Emanuel is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. In February Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that he is "working on (the) health care reform effort." He is "detailed" to the OMB spot and is still officially an employee of the NIH.
In Dr. Emanuel’s writings, he overtly advocates the rationing of healthcare based on age. In January 2009, just one month prior to taking his new position at the White House, Dr. Emanuel co-wrote an article entitled, “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”, in the British medical journal The Lancet. In this article he advocates a particular healthcare allocation system which he calls the “complete lives system.” He declared in The Lancet article that in healthcare, “scarcity is the mother of allocation." He explains, “This system (complete lives system) incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.”

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior. He goes further. He flatly declares that “Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants.” From his standpoint, society has already made an economic investment in the lives of young adults whereas no significant investment has yet been made in the lives of infants, so therefore it’s only “fair” that resources be allocated toward the young adults and away from the infants. He also applies this standard to those that he deems of “no societal worth” such as people with Down syndrome. Sadly, this mindset is eerily similar to that of German National Socialists (Nazis) for the Nazis rationalized their evil attacks against the disabled and vulnerable of their society by throwing out the false notion of "Das Leben nicht lebenswert" or "the life not worth living." This was coupled with claims that the disabled were a financial burden on society. The propaganda poster below illustrates the point well.
(from Pamella Gellar, Atlas Shrugged)

Government Controlled Healthcare, a Hand that Rocks, Cradles to Graves
“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.”
- Vladimir Lenin

Can I just take issue with a few assertions you've made?

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior.


There are two people who need an organ transplant to continue to live. One is sixteen years of age and otherwise perfectly healthy. The other is eighty years of age. Who should get the single organ that is available for transplant?

Can you answer those questions?

the 16 year old is an obese iv drug user and the eighty year old is a body builder and productive member of society

the old man get the transplant

Crap. You consider that an answer?

 

[Old Rocks]

Diuretic Diuretic is offline
The Sultan of Spin
Member #3196
*There are two people who need an organ transplant to continue to live. One is sixteen years of age and otherwise perfectly healthy. The other is eighty years of age. Who should get the single organ that is available for transplant?

I would explain my dilemma to the eighty year old and the family of the sixteen year old and ask for their consul. If no resolution in favor of the 16 year old I would go for a coin toss.

*Again, let's say that an infant of three months of age and a person of sixteen years of age both need a vaccine to keep them alive. There is only one vaccination available. Who should be given the vaccination?

I would consider both lives of equal value, given these limited facts and would go for a coin toss.

*There are two infants. Both are three months of age. Both will die within a week unless they receive an organ transplant. An organ becomes available. Which infant should received the organ?

Again with the coin toss.

Sometimes things just have to be left to fate and can't be judged fairly. I come from the perspective that all life has equal value. The old versus young example caused me the most problem because of limited information. The resolution is too simplified but I see no other choices.

Then you are truly stupid. Life is not a coin toss. It is a series of, or should be, decisions made rationally and logically as possible.

 

[Fatality]

Can I just take issue with a few assertions you've made?

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior.


There are two people who need an organ transplant to continue to live. One is sixteen years of age and otherwise perfectly healthy. The other is eighty years of age. Who should get the single organ that is available for transplant?

Can you answer those questions?

the 16 year old is an obese iv drug user and the eighty year old is a body builder and productive member of society

the old man get the transplant

Crap. You consider that an answer?

i consider you an ignorant fucknut

 

[concept]

I'm amazed at the power the liberal media has bestowed upon Sarah Palin by hating, fearing and generally disrespecting her so much. All she had to do is mention Death Panels and she gets results, amazing!

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision Heh. Palin power.

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia.

They are dropping the death panel. But frankly, they will drop it back in once the health care rout is passed. It's not enough. NO OBAMACARE.

Obama's Ration Man: Rahm's brother Ezekiel Emanuel (read the whole thing at Political Evidence):

President Obama’s chief advisor on healthcare is Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In addition to Dr. Emanuel being a trained oncologist, an NIH Bioethicist and a fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute, The Hastings Center, he's also an avowed communitarian who advocates healthcare rationing.

In February 2009, he was tapped by the administration to work on the formulation of a national healthcare strategy. Officially, Dr. Emanuel is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. In February Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that he is "working on (the) health care reform effort." He is "detailed" to the OMB spot and is still officially an employee of the NIH.
In Dr. Emanuel’s writings, he overtly advocates the rationing of healthcare based on age. In January 2009, just one month prior to taking his new position at the White House, Dr. Emanuel co-wrote an article entitled, “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”, in the British medical journal The Lancet. In this article he advocates a particular healthcare allocation system which he calls the “complete lives system.” He declared in The Lancet article that in healthcare, “scarcity is the mother of allocation." He explains, “This system (complete lives system) incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.”

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior. He goes further. He flatly declares that “Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants.” From his standpoint, society has already made an economic investment in the lives of young adults whereas no significant investment has yet been made in the lives of infants, so therefore it’s only “fair” that resources be allocated toward the young adults and away from the infants. He also applies this standard to those that he deems of “no societal worth” such as people with Down syndrome. Sadly, this mindset is eerily similar to that of German National Socialists (Nazis) for the Nazis rationalized their evil attacks against the disabled and vulnerable of their society by throwing out the false notion of "Das Leben nicht lebenswert" or "the life not worth living." This was coupled with claims that the disabled were a financial burden on society. The propaganda poster below illustrates the point well.
(from Pamella Gellar, Atlas Shrugs)

Government Controlled Healthcare, a Hand that Rocks, Cradles to Graves
“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.”
- Vladimir Lenin

Libs have really created their own pretty little nightmare there.

 

[concept]

* * * *

Then you are truly stupid. Life is not a coin toss. It is a series of, or should be, decisions made rationally and logically as possible.

Yet you vote for liberals time after time and then go on to support legislation that is patently bad...prely because they have a (D) behind their name.

Kinds of says volumes about your rationality and logic.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Diuretic Diuretic is offline
The Sultan of Spin
Member #3196
*There are two people who need an organ transplant to continue to live. One is sixteen years of age and otherwise perfectly healthy. The other is eighty years of age. Who should get the single organ that is available for transplant?

I would explain my dilemma to the eighty year old and the family of the sixteen year old and ask for their consul. If no resolution in favor of the 16 year old I would go for a coin toss.

*Again, let's say that an infant of three months of age and a person of sixteen years of age both need a vaccine to keep them alive. There is only one vaccination available. Who should be given the vaccination?

I would consider both lives of equal value, given these limited facts and would go for a coin toss.

*There are two infants. Both are three months of age. Both will die within a week unless they receive an organ transplant. An organ becomes available. Which infant should received the organ?

Again with the coin toss.

Sometimes things just have to be left to fate and can't be judged fairly. I come from the perspective that all life has equal value. The old versus young example caused me the most problem because of limited information. The resolution is too simplified but I see no other choices.

Then you are truly stupid. Life is not a coin toss. It is a series of, or should be, decisions made rationally and logically as possible.

Okay then, we will leave it up to you, you brut! (sniveling, broken spirited, Lumpy 1)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm amazed at the power the liberal media has bestowed upon Sarah Palin by hating, fearing and generally disrespecting her so much. All she had to do is mention Death Panels and she gets results, amazing!

Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision Heh. Palin power.

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after it was derided by conservatives as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia.

They are dropping the death panel. But frankly, they will drop it back in once the health care rout is passed. It's not enough. NO OBAMACARE.

Obama's Ration Man: Rahm's brother Ezekiel Emanuel (read the whole thing at Political Evidence):

President Obama’s chief advisor on healthcare is Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In addition to Dr. Emanuel being a trained oncologist, an NIH Bioethicist and a fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute, The Hastings Center, he's also an avowed communitarian who advocates healthcare rationing.

In February 2009, he was tapped by the administration to work on the formulation of a national healthcare strategy. Officially, Dr. Emanuel is a special advisor to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. In February Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that he is "working on (the) health care reform effort." He is "detailed" to the OMB spot and is still officially an employee of the NIH.
In Dr. Emanuel’s writings, he overtly advocates the rationing of healthcare based on age. In January 2009, just one month prior to taking his new position at the White House, Dr. Emanuel co-wrote an article entitled, “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”, in the British medical journal The Lancet. In this article he advocates a particular healthcare allocation system which he calls the “complete lives system.” He declared in The Lancet article that in healthcare, “scarcity is the mother of allocation." He explains, “This system (complete lives system) incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.”

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior. He goes further. He flatly declares that “Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants.” From his standpoint, society has already made an economic investment in the lives of young adults whereas no significant investment has yet been made in the lives of infants, so therefore it’s only “fair” that resources be allocated toward the young adults and away from the infants. He also applies this standard to those that he deems of “no societal worth” such as people with Down syndrome. Sadly, this mindset is eerily similar to that of German National Socialists (Nazis) for the Nazis rationalized their evil attacks against the disabled and vulnerable of their society by throwing out the false notion of "Das Leben nicht lebenswert" or "the life not worth living." This was coupled with claims that the disabled were a financial burden on society. The propaganda poster below illustrates the point well.
(from Pamella Gellar, Atlas Shrugged)

Government Controlled Healthcare, a Hand that Rocks, Cradles to Graves
“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.”
- Vladimir Lenin

Can I just take issue with a few assertions you've made?

In other words, Dr. Emanuel places a higher value on a young adult's life, than he would the life of a senior.

The article is about how scarce medical resources – organs and vaccines – should be distributed. Let me give you a simple example.

There are two people who need an organ transplant to continue to live. One is sixteen years of age and otherwise perfectly healthy. The other is eighty years of age. Who should get the single organ that is available for transplant?

He flatly declares that “Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants.”

Again, let's say that an infant of three months of age and a person of sixteen years of age both need a vaccine to keep them alive. There is only one vaccination available. Who should be given the vaccination?

He also applies this standard to those that he deems of “no societal worth” such as people with Down syndrome.

There are two infants. Both are three months of age. Both will die within a week unless they receive an organ transplant. An organ becomes available. Which infant should received the organ?

Can you answer those questions?

Well there ya go kids... the entire "national Healthcare scheme is little more than the intellectual rationalization which rests within the old T&V axiom of "Secular Ethics;" commonly known as the "Life Boat Drill..."

In essence it's a lie that advances a series of false chocies; it rolls out a list of people which is designed to project that the numbers are beyond the life sustaining potential of the Life Boat, by ONE... it then lists the races, occupations and genders of the occupants and asks the addled-minded student to determine WHO HAS TO LEAVE THE LIFE BOAT, TO THEIR CERTAIN DEATH... in order to spare the collective; AND WHY...

It's a tool of indoctrination which rests upon a false choice...

Ya see, all human beings are endowed by their creator with EQUAL RIGHTS... thus the teenager has the SAME RIGHTS as the Senior... they're life represents no more a VALUE than the next... as they have the SAME RIGHTS, FROM THE SAME SOURCE and upon the SAME AUTHORITY.

What you see in the Australian sophists position is the deception that hopes to project that the teenager has more potential, that they have more to offer the collective in terms of RETURN on the investment of finite resources, than does the Senior...

It's a lie friends... and it's a lie which stems from the erroneous belief that the STATE; the Government; The ethereal COLLECTIVE... determines what 'right' are... and who has them.

Such is false because ALL OF THOSE NOTED ARE ENDOWED WITH THE SAME RIGHTS AS THOSE TO WHICH THEY WOULD IMPART RIGHTS... AND USUPR RIGHTS! And THEY HAVE NO RIGHT WHICH ENTITLES THEM TO USURP THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER WHO IS NOT OVERTLY ATTEMPTING TO DO THE SAME TO THEM, FIRST! They have no additional rights to impart to ANYONE... ALL they have is POWER; and they have no power beyond the terms of their office to impart rights to anyone of ANY KIND; and they have no means to sustain those rights... beyond the terms of their office. Thus where their terms comes to pass, so pass those false rights; thus their were in truth, no rights...

It's a lie... and it's a lie of the damnable variety; and this is due to it being a lie which only leads away from freedom, even as it claims to be the path TO FREEDOM.

Now, let's look at the whole Leftist argument for "National Healthcare"...

The entire argument is founded upon WHAT?

It is founded upon the premise that the US has people who aren't insured... which is true. But what is NOT true is that those people have chosen to BE INSURED and could not manage to do so... AND that not being insured equates to NO ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT. Or the most common, that those insured are denied medical care by uncaring bureaucrats...

It's a lie... and whats more, when you look at the above rationalization you find that the ADVOCATES for National Healthcare are returning to inform you that there will be instances where those 'insured' by national healthcare, will inevtiably come to a point where circumstancs simply do not provide for medical treatment... and that these instances are based upon 'good reasons'... the reasons of the 'realist'...

Of course, the 'uncaring bureaucrats' that this ENTIRE FIASCO is designed to eliminate, also have 'good reasons' to deny coverage... but the Leftist is telling you that THEIR reasons are morally sound, because their REASONS are founded in the BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE... and not the distasteful interests of the "OTHER PEOPLE."

Here're the facts: The US healthcare system costs more because it treats more... it's not perfect, but it is SUPERIOR... and where you decide to concede your RESPONSIBILITY, you CONCEDE THE RIGHT WHICH THAT RESPONSIBILITY SUSTAINS...

Turn from these liars and reject their looming tyranny.

 

[Keith_J_Lemire]

Now, let's look at the whole Leftist argument for "National Healthcare"...

The entire argument is founded upon WHAT?

​

 

[EriktheRed]

Palin was for end of life counseling when she was the Gov...before she quit being the gov, that is...now she's just a liar.

Apparently Gingrich was for putting in as part of Medicare, too, but only recently changed his tune.

 

[EriktheRed]

dykes are not given any preference, they are automaticly disqualified

Stay classy...

 

[Gudrid]

But what is NOT true is that those people have chosen to BE INSURED and could not manage to do so... AND that not being insured equates to NO ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT. Or the most common, that those insured are denied medical care by uncaring bureaucrats...

That is flat out false. I have seen people in both of these situations, repeatedly. I have seen people who can't get medical insurance while trying for years, one of whom is a multi-millionaire. I have seen people denied medical treatment because they were uninsured. You are either ignorant or a liar, and you should be ashamed of posting such blatantly false information.

On the other hand, anyone who bought into the "death panel" thing probably isn't bright enough to do anything other than echo talking points, so I guess I should pity you. Perhaps I'll be able to do that once I'm over being disgusted.